There is no argument to be made, all that's needed is a description of reality. I gave a basic description of what was done, you can read more detailed descriptions if you bother to find a good source. Anyone who has a simple desire for the truth will percieve that what we did was not torture and was most certainly a good thing to do. But too many people don't care about that, especially the talking heads on tv and the avid news watching talking-point repeaters, and that's where the arguments start. People who have filled some sort of existential gap in their soul with some ideological beliefs, religious beliefs, moral posturing, social group identification, etc, and are willing to say anything that sounds good to them. It's narcissism gone wild. People love the image of CIA agents dousing people with water with sadistic glee and scribbling down whatever they babble out to make the pain stop. McCain loves his "maverick" image too much to care that he's saying things that are idiotic. The media treats anyone who says "waterboarding is torture" like a hero, and ordinary people want a bit of that glory for themselves, or at least want to avoid being "some patriotic wingnut".
Human nature is deeply flawed and this particular flaw is very well illustrated by the Orwellian equivocation over the word "waterboarding" for deeply selfish purposes.
Brilliant. Thank you for this. I've long held the notion that the hysterical whinging over waterboarding has been more about the whingers than the practice, but I haven't been able to translate that notion into a cogent statement. If people took the time to understand what actually happened, a collective 'meh' would be heard around the nation. Self-righteousness supported by a sensationalist media is a powerful combination. I mean, what a great feeling it must be to take a stand against 'torture', no matter how ridiculously broad the definition has become.
09-10-2012, 18:54
Xiahou
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
To me it appears that you're merely trying to restrict the meaning of the word "torture" because you're unwilling to challenge the notion that all torture is bad.
I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.
To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....
09-10-2012, 19:15
Kadagar_AV
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.
To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....
We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.
If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?
09-10-2012, 19:16
Hax
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
That's Israel, not us.
Since you don't bother reading: American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Quote:
Being insensitive to public opinion <> "characterised by general ignorance concerning even aspects that any amateur historian or anthropologist could know about the Middle-East"
Read again: "and largely ignorant of".
Quote:
Like Hamas?
Yes, because that's the only Islamist organisation everywhere anywhere all the time.
Quote:
It's not worth $26.00
Yes well, y'know, it's your choice. You do realise that's exactly what's wrong with the world, right? By the way, it was written by this guy.
The thing is that you already think that you know everything you need to know about the Middle-East. Everything that differs from or seems to disagree with this opinion is immediately disregarded as wrong.
EDIT: By the way, remember that thing I said about the Ba‘ath party executing children a couple of threads back? I found the passage:
Warning: graphic descriptions
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
The next pages, therefore, belong to dr. Shahristani: [...]"One prisoner told me he was seventeen and he was the youngest prisoner and so they made him sweep the corridors of the internal security headquarters every morning at seven o'clock. He saw a peasnt woman from the south with tattoos, he said, a woman from the marshes with a girl of ten and a boy of about six. She was carrying a baby in her arms. the prisoner told me that as he was sweeping, an officer came and thold the woman: 'Tell me where your husband is - very bad things can happen.' She said: "Look, my husband takes great pride in the honour of his woman. If he knew I was here, he would have turned himself in.' The officer took out his pistol and held the daughter up by the braids of her hair and put a bullet into her head. The woman didn't know what was happening. Then he put a bullet into the boy's head. The woman was going crazy. He took the youngest boy by the legs and smashed the baby's brain on a wall.
09-10-2012, 19:16
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.
If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?
Terrorists are neither civilians nor military. Those rules do not apply to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Since you don't bother reading: American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Condi has nothing to do with the 2006 war
Quote:
Read again: "and largely ignorant of".
Ignorant how?
Quote:
Yes, because that's the only Islamist organisation everywhere anywhere all the time.
It's an offshoot of muslim brotherhood.
Quote:
The thing is that you already think that you know everything you need to know about the Middle-East. Everything that differs from or seems to disagree with this opinion is immediately disregarded as wrong.
I do? They are? What makes you think that I think I know everything? I yield to arguments, provided that they are logical.
09-10-2012, 19:19
Fragony
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.
If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?
Who is that world you are talking about, it's certainly not me
09-10-2012, 19:20
Kadagar_AV
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.
To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....
We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.
If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?
09-10-2012, 19:24
Hax
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
It's an offshoot of muslim brotherhood.
Which is still not the only Islamist organisation.
[QUOTE]Condi has nothing to do with the 2006 war[/QUOTE]
And yet she said this thing about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Of course she has something to do with it, she was the then-Secretary of State of State.
Quote:
I do? They are? What makes you think that I think I know everything? I yield to arguments, provided that they are logical.
How about the presumption that Islamist movements are legitimate. Let's start there.
09-10-2012, 19:29
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Which is still not the only Islamist organisation.
It's certainly the largest one, the most influential, with branches all over Middle East.
Quote:
Of course she has something to do with it, she was the then-Secretary of State of State.
Something? What something?
Quote:
How about the presumption that Islamist movements are legitimate. Let's start there.
Why should I presume that?
09-10-2012, 19:45
Hax
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
It's certainly the largest one, the most influential, with branches all over Middle East.
Citation required.
Furthermore, all these "offshoots" that you mention are nowadays as far removed from the Muslim Brotherhood as the Marlboro Baptist Church is from the Vatican, theologically speaking.
Quote:
Something? What something?
You tell me, I'm not an expert on what the Secretary of State can and can't or should and shouldn't say.
Quote:
Why should I presume that?
I could just go the easy way and say: "read Cleveland's book, maybe just maybe you'd understand why."
The hard way, of course, will be the one to take: the rise to power of secularist and authoritarian regimes largely went hand-in-hand with an increase in unemployment and corruption, which led to widespread disillusionment with the ruling regimes, which in turn led to the formation of political opposition parties which were then more often than not (violently) suppressed. As a result of these crackdowns, the only remaining form of domestic political opposition was through religious opposition.
Examples of a dramatic increase of unemployment can be seen in countries as diverse and with completely different policies as Iran (the Shah vis-à-vis the Tudeh party), Indonesia (the failure of secular parties), Turkey (the rise of the AKP) and more recently Egypt and Tunisia, in which the two dominating political parties were Islamist in nature. The only places so far where we've seen the reverse are Libya and Lebanon, the latter primarily because a sectarian civil war that has lasted more than thirty years has made the people sick and tired of sectarian mumbo-jumbo, to put it mildly.
Basically, Islamism was a logical consequence of the dominating policy concerning political opposition in many different countries. And it should be treated, in my opinion, as a completely legitimate political current.
09-10-2012, 20:00
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Citation required.
Furthermore, all these "offshoots" that you mention are nowadays as far removed from the Muslim Brotherhood as the Marlboro Baptist Church is from the Vatican, theologically speaking.
Certainly:
The Society of the Muslim Brothers (Arabic: جماعة الإخوان المسلمون, often simply: الإخوان المسلمون, "the Muslim Brotherhood", transliterated: al-ʾiḫwān al-muslimūn) is the Arab world's most influential[1] and one of the largest Islamic movements,[2] and is the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states.[which?] Founded in Egypt in 1928 as a Pan-Islamic, religious, political, and social movement by the Islamic scholar and schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna,[3][4][5][6] by the end of World War II the MB had an estimated two million members.[7] Its ideas had gained supporters throughout the Arab world and influenced other Islamist groups with its "model of political activism combined with Islamic charity work".[8]
That's wikipedia.
Quote:
You tell me, I'm not an expert on what the Secretary of State can and can't or should and shouldn't say.
You're the one accusing her of being involved in the 2006 campaign...
Quote:
I could just go the easy way and say: "read Cleveland's book, maybe just maybe you'd understand why."
Yeah, let's do it the hard way.
Quote:
The hard way, of course, will be the one to take: the rise to power of secularist and authoritarian regimes largely went hand-in-hand with an increase in unemployment and corruption, which led to widespread disillusionment with the ruling regimes, which in turn led to the formation of political opposition parties which were then more often than not (violently) suppressed. As a result of these crackdowns, the only remaining form of domestic political opposition was through religious opposition.
Yes, yes, so far so good...
Quote:
Examples of a dramatic increase of unemployment can be seen in countries as diverse and with completely different policies as Iran (the Shah vis-à-vis the Tudeh party),
From what I'm hearing out of Iran, people are fed up with the ayatollahs much more than they were with the Shah.
Quote:
Indonesia (the failure of secular parties),
Failure? Could you elaborate on this?
Quote:
Turkey (the rise of the AKP)
And their recent cleansing of the military is very troubling...
Quote:
and more recently Egypt and Tunisia, in which the two dominating political parties were Islamist in nature.
And there already are some troublesome signals coming from Tunisia. Still, too early to judge either one.
Quote:
The only places so far where we've seen the reverse are Libya and Lebanon, the latter primarily because a sectarian civil war that has lasted more than thirty years has made the people sick and tired of sectarian mumbo-jumbo, to put it mildly.
Libya was a pleasant surprise indeed. Nonetheless, it's too early to tell.
Quote:
Basically, Islamism was a logical consequence of the dominating policy concerning political opposition in many different countries.
Oh, it's certainly logical. The question is: is it positive?
Quote:
And it should be treated, in my opinion, as a completely legitimate political current.
Up until the Arab spring islamism manifested itself via Hamas, Hesbollah, and the dear Islamic Republic of Iran. Needless to say, I have a healthy skepticism when looking at islamist movements.
09-10-2012, 21:15
Kadagar_AV
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
We don't torture our own people, so torturing other people is crossing an obvious and easy-to-see moral line in the sand.
Don't know what else to say, really. Apologists gonna apologize. :shrug:
That's kind of the same as:
Quote:
We have set rules how to treat civilian prisoners.
We have set rules for how to treat captured military personnel.
If a country then decide to make up their own rules, you must understand that the world get somewhat... skeptical. No?
But yeah. I actually would have less against it if the US didn't simultaneously try to picture themselves as "the good guys".
IF, and only when and IF the states and its people come out saying "Yeah, we are as bad as the rest, and the world is filled with grey scales" - I can somewhat have some understanding.
It's the damn "We are gonna lead the civilized world against the horrors" that gets to me. As the US is very VERY much part of what other people find horrific.
09-10-2012, 21:24
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
We don't torture our own people, so torturing other people is crossing an obvious and easy-to-see moral line in the sand.
Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.
09-10-2012, 21:41
Sarmatian
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.
That's the exact same thing the chicken said about the road.
09-10-2012, 21:45
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.
That's an incredibly dangerous thing to say, it implies above all that the US Government is an immoral entity - such a government has no legitimacy, and it therefore follows that it should be overthrown.
There remains the unanswered question regarding the information extracted during torture - it is by and large useless. torture was used to extract confessions of witchcraft and, most famously, it was used to discredit the Knights Templar and paint them as heretics.
09-10-2012, 21:48
Kralizec
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.
Kadagar, your sig needs to be updated.
No offense to you rvg, I can understand and sympathize with your opinions most of the time, but in this case I just disagree completely.
EDIT: lol, not one but two people actually jumped to reply to it before I could.
to further clarify, if I were the leader of a country and put in a position where someone came up to me that a ticking bomb scenario had just kicked with 3.000+ deaths at stake in and there was one chance, a realistic one, that those lives could be saved for sanctioning torture this one time I just might approve. I'm enough of a realist to admit that I'd seriously consider it. What bothers me is that people use the ticking bomb scenario as a hypothetical scenario to justify a policy of fighting terrorism in general, even as a strictly preemtive measure - even though that's not equivalent to the ticking bomb scenario.
09-10-2012, 22:09
Kralizec
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I think you've nailed the other side of the discussion. Sasaki, as I read him, is talking about where the marker for "torture" should be placed. You're asking if some torture can ever be acceptable.
To me, I don't think there's a black and white answer to either question. I think there are places on the far ends of the spectrum that everyone can agree on. Everything in between can get murky. That's where governments and treaties come in so the populace, via their elected representatives can decide....
I think it's pretty obvious. Information can be given:
A) freely, voluntarily, free of any duress or coersion
B) under the conditions imposed, the subject calculates that it isn't worth the hassle
C) blackmail or other forms of coersion not considered torture (broad, and not particulary relevant here)
D) inflicting pain, or other stimuli severe enough to be considered equal or worse, that causes so much stress that the subject mentally breaks and begins to talk
Everything under category D is torture in my view. I can imagine situations where there the distinction between pressure and torture becomes blurred, such as sleep deprivation with intermittent interrogations. Waterboarding is, by definition, a procedure that causes your body to "believe" it's in the process of dying, and should always be considered torture. Wether it can ever be acceptable is, of course, another question.
09-10-2012, 22:44
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
to further clarify, if I were the leader of a country and put in a position where someone came up to me that a ticking bomb scenario had just kicked with 3.000+ deaths at stake in and there was one chance, a realistic one, that those lives could be saved for sanctioning torture this one time I just might approve. I'm enough of a realist to admit that I'd seriously consider it.
Soooo, how is your position different from mine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
There remains the unanswered question regarding the information extracted during torture - it is by and large useless. torture was used to extract confessions of witchcraft and, most famously, it was used to discredit the Knights Templar and paint them as heretics.
If we ever get our hands on Templar Ayman al-Zawahiri, yeah, let's just say that it'll suck to be him.
09-10-2012, 22:47
Kadagar_AV
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Kadagar, your sig needs to be updated.
Yeah.. Just, me having that in my signature would give whole other connotations... I still would never in any circumstance defend the view though. No matter what you talk about.
09-10-2012, 22:48
Kadagar_AV
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
DP,
To use the blunder to answer RVG though:
Quote:
Soooo, how is your position different from mine?
Because there is a massive amount of situations where you have tortured people without a ticking bomb scenario?
09-10-2012, 22:55
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Soooo, how is your position different from mine?
Ultimately, he probably wouldn't authorise it because there's very little chance it would work. Plus, he's be impeached, tried and convicted if caught.
Quote:
If we ever get our hands on Templar Ayman al-Zawahiri, yeah, let's just say that it'll suck to be him.
So utility is just an excuse then? The real reason the inmates in Gitmo are tortured is because they can't be tried in a legal court.
09-10-2012, 23:00
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Ultimately, he probably wouldn't authorise it because there's very little chance it would work. Plus, he's be impeached, tried and convicted if caught.
Oh, if that's the reason and if he puts his personal safety ahead of that of thousands of his compatriots, then he shouldn't be in a position to make that judgement call.
Quote:
So utility is just an excuse then? The real reason the inmates in Gitmo are tortured is because they can't be tried in a legal court.
It might come as a surprise, but I really do not advocate torturing people for fun. So no, no need to torture Al Zawahiri if he cooperates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Because there is a massive amount of situations where you have tortured people without a ticking bomb scenario?
Just because this tactic can be misused does not invalidate it when the situation really calls for it.
09-10-2012, 23:02
Kralizec
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Soooo, how is your position different from mine?
Well, you've not exhaustively defined the conditions under which you'd approve torture, but you seem to have a basically utilitarian approach to the thing.
My general stance is that torture is unacceptable, but that I would probably not be able to resist approving it when there's 5 minutes left to save thousands of people and it's the only way, and a way I knew had a realistic chance of saving those people. Your stance seems to be that torture is wrong on principle, but that we should have a pre-designed policy of breaking that principle when dealing with terrorists.
Basically, the ticking bomb scenario strikes me as a red herring because it's used to justify a policy of torture for cases that clearly are not ticking bomb scenarios.
09-10-2012, 23:08
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Well, you've not exhaustively defined the conditions under which you'd approve torture, but you seem to have a basically utilitarian approach to the thing.
My general stance is that torture is unacceptable, but that I would probably not be able to resist approving it when there's 5 minutes left to save thousands of people and it's the only way, and a way I knew had a realistic chance of saving those people. Your stance seems to be that torture is wrong on principle, but that we should have a pre-designed policy of breaking that principle when dealing with terrorists.
Basically, the ticking bomb scenario strikes me as a red herring because it's used to justify a policy of torture for cases that clearly are not ticking bomb scenarios.
This reminds me of the late Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin. Not long after he took office, the Israeli security forces apprehended a guy whom they suspected in being involved in a suicide bomb plot. They asked Rabin for a go-ahead on torture to extract the plot from the guy. Rabin, declined, the suicide bomber went kaboom, a bunch of people died. A few months (or was it years) later, same scenario. Only this time Rabin agreed to put a suspect on the rack. The suspect sang like a bird, everyone involved was apprehended, plot was foiled.
The moral of the story is that even a liberal and peacenik like Rabin came to the understanding that sometimes you have to be just as ruthless or even more ruthless than your enemy. Otherwise innocent people die.
09-10-2012, 23:08
Tellos Athenaios
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
With just five minutes left you are going to waste time on physics equivalent of howling to the moon to extract life saving info?
... Yeah, that'll work.
09-10-2012, 23:09
Beskar
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.
No, it doesn't.
There is of course, relative morality which stands by the notion that your actions are justified on the basis on the need but such an situation isn't acting immoral or against the spirit of morality.
If a person was going to pull a trigger which would kill 100 people, the act for you to "prevent the immorality" is your moral responsibility. Ultimately, as such, a large array of tactics are employed (Should as asking the person to stop) with final "trump cards" as a last resort and only to be used as a last resort.
This is not "crossing that line" because your actions are completely justifiable and follows the spirit of the principles you uphold.
However, members of the Taliban should be treated with the same provision as an enemy combatant during the opening stages of the war (at minimum), since they were members of the regime. Since the regime has been supplanted, they are still citizens of that nation and their actions and crimes should be dealt by that nation. It is not the place of the "outside power" to deal with this and further more, that outside power should not be rule-lawyering like a "tax avoidance" cheat to clearly abuse the framework and system.
09-10-2012, 23:12
Major Robert Dump
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
This one time, I tortured a Taliban by having a 22 year-old female private come in and rub her breasts on his face until he vomited. We call that Boobie Boarding.
Another time, we tied a Taliban face down onto a peice of hard metal, then raised his head, where I pranced about in a thong with little sheep on it, gyrating my buttocks in his direction, to the beat of a Shakira song. The sheep and my manly, hairy buttocks was a double whammy, as his erection pressed against the metal and caused much discomfort. We call this Boner Boarding.
Both scenarios were successful. In the first, he confirmed his own innocence and allowed us to focus on other potential threats. We then erased his mind and dropped him on his Qalat porch, rang the giant bell, and ran off.
In the second scenarion, he was guilty, and led us straight to the one-armed man.
09-10-2012, 23:22
Kadagar_AV
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Edit: forum is really playing up with me today!! Thunderstorms in Sweden or something else?
09-11-2012, 00:08
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
With just five minutes left you are going to waste time on physics equivalent of howling to the moon to extract life saving info?
... Yeah, that'll work.
Well, quite.
Torture - just say no.
09-11-2012, 01:11
Xiahou
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
This one time, I tortured a Taliban by having a 22 year-old female private come in and rub her breasts on his face until he vomited. We call that Boobie Boarding.
Another time, we tied a Taliban face down onto a peice of hard metal, then raised his head, where I pranced about in a thong with little sheep on it, gyrating my buttocks in his direction, to the beat of a Shakira song. The sheep and my manly, hairy buttocks was a double whammy, as his erection pressed against the metal and caused much discomfort. We call this Boner Boarding.
Both scenarios were successful. In the first, he confirmed his own innocence and allowed us to focus on other potential threats. We then erased his mind and dropped him on his Qalat porch, rang the giant bell, and ran off.
In the second scenarion, he was guilty, and led us straight to the one-armed man.
I notice you called boobie boarding torture- but not boner boarding. Why is that?
09-11-2012, 04:13
Strike For The South
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
"Well Enough"
Dead Americans, Dead civilians, A more unstable region, A region that hates us more than ever, Wars which have given leaders propaganda for years to come, states which are blackholes for money, states which will topple as soon as we leave.
I shudder to see your definition of average.
As a citizen of this republic I am fully culpable for the actions of my government, especially if I continually allow them to peruse these types policies.
I fully understand the realism of situation, however most America does not. Their kids are dying and our government tells them to wrap themselves in the flag, remember they died spreading democracy, and posts photos of motorcycle brigades, crying wives and opining dogs.
Dressing up the pawns as if they are martyrs in order to silence dissent.
I hold no love for terrorists, mind you. The killing of innocents is very wrong and they certainly deserve no praise or even equivalence. However,you will never hear me defending my government nor wondering why the hate happens.
Shining city upon the hill my ass. Nothing more than another in the long line of superpowers.
09-11-2012, 04:29
Major Robert Dump
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I notice you called boobie boarding torture- but not boner boarding. Why is that?
It was just an accidental omission, as he was unable to reach me due to being restrained, made all the worse by the fact that it was Man Love Thursday. For what it's worth, he did try to tip me a dollar as we whisked him away blindfolded on a Korean Brackhark.
09-11-2012, 05:35
Crazed Rabbit
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
So it seems rvg is arguing for the sociopathic state, where every evil can be excused by claiming you're fighting the other side.
Quote:
Of course it is crossing the moral line. Sometimes that line needs to be crossed.
That's ridiculous, as is you're original quote about abandoning principles. We never need to give in to fear.
One of the best reasons, of course, is that doing evil things to the enemy always leads to an expansion of the definition of enemy. Right now it's considered fine to have the President order the assassination of an American citizen without evidence, trial, judge or jury. How long until we do away with more rights in order to get criminals?
Abandoning principles destroys those principles.
Plus, I cannot support immoral actions.
CR
09-11-2012, 06:22
HopAlongBunny
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Democracy-we had to destroy it in order to save it (tm)
09-11-2012, 09:44
Ironside
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
It's fine where it is now: in the grey area. Not legal, but still being used when the situation warrants it.
So no oversight outside the small group of "hard men making hard choises". That will go well, as it has been doing so many times in history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Must? Nobody said that. Can. Can do and need to do. Occasionally. It's a useful tool when dealing with fanatics like those of al-Qaeda. No amount of religious instruction can trump good old fashioned pain. Everyone feels it, everyone fears it. So you apply it, make the guy wish he was never born, and then he talks. Oh, and make it clear that if he's lying, he'll be introduced to a whole new level of pain. Information received. Terrorist plot foiled. Everybody's happy.
Outside confessions, where the confession is certain from the beginning, torture is hardly a golden bullet. Many people doesn't give useful information, even when they are known to have important information.
09-11-2012, 09:52
HopAlongBunny
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
We never need to give in to fear.CR
This.
Giving in to fear is handing terrorists a pure win. Roll back rights (win) compromise principles (win) transform into a "torture state" (win); what victory have you actually denied you persecutors?
09-11-2012, 10:02
Fragony
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Giving in to fear and understanding there is a threat is not the same thing.
@all, if someone kidnapped a loved one and straps up timed explosion with 2 hours on the clock on said loved one, and he's sitting right on front of you but refuses to talk, wouldn't you be prepared to torture him?
09-11-2012, 11:51
Beskar
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
@all, if someone kidnapped a loved one and straps up timed explosion with 2 hours on the clock on said loved one, and he's sitting right on front of you but refuses to talk, wouldn't you be prepared to torture him?
It is a completely different situation and you have to be honest, torture is probably one of the worst ways to get him talking. "All I need is hold out a little longer.. then I win!", with that kind of motivation especially when they have a conviction to die themselves, your loved one will blow up.
Most logical choice would be is to try to be reasonable with the said person, whilst in the background, you start doing things like "When was he last seen two hours ago on the CCTV.." "He called that number at roughly that time and there.. ok, the victim might be at 22nd Street.."
You would be employing a vast amount of resources which are far more liking to produce the results you want in that situation and that person knows full well if you kill him, you lose anyway so it would have to be some extreme torture, which unfortunately, would take days and weeks to the point he tells you so you may allow him to have a quick death. The example is fundamentally flawed and counterproductive.
Also on amazing note, you have all those people in Gitmo getting tortured for years and none of them dobbed on Osama Bin Laden and he was found through detective work and deduction.
It is a completely different situation and you have to be honest, torture is probably one of the worst ways to get him talking. "All I need is hold out a little longer.. then I win!", with that kind of motivation especially when they have a conviction to die themselves, your loved one will blow up.
Most logical choice would be is to try to be reasonable with the said person, whilst in the background, you start doing things like "When was he last seen two hours ago on the CCTV.." "He called that number at roughly that time and there.. ok, the victim might be at 22nd Street.."
You would be employing a vast amount of resources which are far more liking to produce the results you want in that situation and that person knows full well if you kill him, you lose anyway so it would have to be some extreme torture, which unfortunately, would take days and weeks to the point he tells you so you may allow him to have a quick death. The example is fundamentally flawed and counterproductive.
Also on amazing note, you have all those people in Gitmo getting tortured for years and none of them dobbed on Osama Bin Laden and he was found through detective work and deduction.
Not counterproductive if you torture him really badly. It isn't a very nice thing to do but I can think of a few situation where it is the best out of bad choices. If every second counts bring on the fishing-hooks, I would certainly do what I would really hate doing. I'm not an agressive or a sadistic person but I will do it if I don't see any other way. Saying you would never torture a person or kill a person is nonsense. Everybody will if the stakes are high.
09-11-2012, 13:11
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
We never need to give in to fear.
It's not about giving in to fear, it's about putting lives above principles. If you don't want to torture a terrorist in order to prevent an attack, that's your prerogative. Me? I'd light a fire under him in a heartbeat. As for whether or not it is moral or immoral, ask the families of the victims of the terrorist attack that could have been prevented. To me, saving the lives of my compatriots is of higher priority than respecting the rights of a person whose life's aim is the utter destruction of our way of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Doing something that is wrong because you are overcome with righteous and violent emotion, understandable to all? We have something for that in our legal system, called a Crime of Passion. It is still a crime. nate or spontaneous. It was cold, calculated, and involved many top white-house lawyers and many layers of secrecy.[
Its moot anyway, though. The process that legitimized torture under the Bush administration was far from passion
What emotion? What passion? It's a matter of logic. If you don't obtain information A, people die. Suspect B has information A, but refuses to relinquish it. So you do what needs to be done to obtain A. End of story. This isn't vengeance, it's intelligence gathering.
09-11-2012, 16:14
Beskar
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Saying you would never torture a person or kill a person is nonsense. Everybody will if the stakes are high.
I didn't say that in my little speech, I was more addressing that it is purely situational warranted. If that person x had the answer you need, outright killing him would be very counterproductive, and lets say he co-operated (or didn't), outright killing him would not be desired either.
Obviously if it was a "him or me" situation, I would shoot in self-defence. My goal isn't to necessarily kill, it is just to prevent him from killing me.
There is an obvious morality still in play. Going far beyond the scope of that morality is unacceptable.
Sure in the "him or me" situation I might end up killing the person, I don't deny this fact, but I will take solace I did the best I could before that moment. These are boiling kettle situations where the line can be very sketchy, but being able to understand a situation in context does not give ground to the argument that prolonged detention and torture without a trial is acceptable.
So in a nutshell:
"two-hour bomb on a family member, person obviously guilty, he knows codes and location which can save them"
=/=
"I was loading a truck with weapons before the US marines came up and arrested me, I am now on an island off the coast of Cuba being tortured for three years when I have not got any useful information to supply and no chance of foreseeable freedom"
09-11-2012, 16:25
Fragony
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
I didn't say that in my little speech, I was more addressing that it is purely situational warranted. If that person x had the answer you need, outright killing him would be very counterproductive, and lets say he co-operated (or didn't), outright killing him would not be desired either.
Obviously if it was a "him or me" situation, I would shoot in self-defence. My goal isn't to necessarily kill, it is just to prevent him from killing me.
There is an obvious morality still in play. Going far beyond the scope of that morality is unacceptable.
Sure in the "him or me" situation I might end up killing the person, I don't deny this fact, but I will take solace I did the best I could before that moment. These are boiling kettle situations where the line can be very sketchy, but being able to understand a situation in context does not give ground to the argument that prolonged detention and torture without a trial is acceptable.
The best you could you have done you probably already did at the point where you would even consider it. That is also civilisasation, not really liking it.
09-11-2012, 16:26
Major Robert Dump
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
I'm not going to get into the waterboarding is-or-is-not torture argument, although I do think it is sad that we have to argue this to begin with, considering it was used as a desperate tactic in War of Choice, that we rushed into unprepared, to save peoples skins in a textbook insurgency that the VP warned us would happen in 1992 but apparently changed his mind about 10 years later, sending tens of thousands of troops riding in soft skin humvees and then acting all OMGUS when we started getting mass cals, diagnosing the weapons incorrectly and killing civilians, which fueld the insurgency, then finally figuring it our and patting ourselves on the backs for figuring out even though it was just like what happened in the philippines.
Anyway, it appears the two remaining cases have been closed, in which a CIA agent in Iraq tortured a guy to death and one in Afghanistan did the same thing. In both cases, the agents have been promoted. Even if you support torture 100%, this is appalling, considering they obviously sucked at their job and they got lots of military people working under them in deep, deep trouble.
I hope at least some lessons were learned, and that future detainee guards tell civlian "advisors" to **** off when given illegal orders. But I doubt it.
09-11-2012, 21:43
Papewaio
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
It's not about giving in to fear, it's about putting lives above principles. If you don't want to torture a terrorist in order to prevent an attack, that's your prerogative. Me? I'd light a fire under him in a heartbeat. As for whether or not it is moral or immoral, ask the families of the victims of the terrorist attack that could have been prevented. To me, saving the lives of my compatriots is of higher priority than respecting the rights of a person whose life's aim is the utter destruction of our way of life.
Let us skip things like terrorist cells where information is so limited between group members that leakage is virtually impossible.
I'm fine with your rules of engagement as long as you understand that love, war and diplomacy are all reciprical arrangements.
By your own rules it is fine for an enemy combatant to be tortured if it saves lives of your compatriots. Add in rendition, drone strikes and a new definition of surrender being stark naked with hands up. These are all acceptable methods to fight ones enemies.
Of course the reciprical is also true. So Afghans, Iraqis and any other invaded country can fight back against an occupying power as per the Declaration of Independence as it stats some of the key reasons to being allowed to do so is the use of mercenaries against the population and the lack of trials. Drone strikes certainly are a method of skipping innocent until proven guilty. If you want to use the tack that they were armed, well the right to bear arms doesn't make every American an enemy of the state either does it?
So occupied people have the right to fight back as per the Declaration of Independence.
They also have the right to fight back in a manner the same as their aggressor.
So if they torture American soldiers to find out information that will save the lives of their compatriots that is reciprical.
If they don't take American prisoners unless they are naked and have their hands up that as reciprical.
If they shoot first and ask questions later that is reciprical.
If they behead an enemy in an effort to save lives of their compatriots well that is reciprical too. It just a bit of column A and column B together of reciprical behaviour for drone strikes and torture.
If you are fine with this being the new rules of engagement then as we like to say no worries. If not why not? If its good for the goose it's good for the gander.
Every action or in action has consequences. Just not always the ones we intend. Bit like smoking really. :smoking:
09-11-2012, 22:52
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I'm fine with your rules of engagement as long as you understand that love, war and diplomacy are all reciprical arrangements.
They're terrorists, they observe no rules.
09-11-2012, 23:06
Fragony
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
They're terrorists, they observe no rules.
^- that. Genevaconvention is about war between nations.
09-12-2012, 00:01
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Hah. When they first went over them in basic training, the name was simple "The Rules of Land Warfare." We were trained to treat them properly, and according to the rules.
So, this torture memo went against regular Army policies that were actually still in effect 3 years later. :shrug:
I wonder what their memos are saying...
09-12-2012, 00:04
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Mommy, its not my fault, they did it too? I bet you're big on family valus, like most right wingers, right? Why bother teaching those values to your kids if you're not going to apply them to the world?
Oh, wait.. because the lynchpin of your viewpoint is that we are inherently better than them, and because of that its all good. I shouldn't have to explain to you why that is bad.
Is this what you call a rebuttal? Nice try.
09-12-2012, 00:09
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Pot calling the kettle black?
Are you saying I'm not right? You're whole point of view revolves around the idea that an American life is worth more than an Afghan life or an Iraqi life. Everything else is just you trying to make it sound rational.
My view is that an innocent life is worth more than the rights of a terrorist. Nothing more.
09-12-2012, 00:22
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Orly?
When we detained people in Iraq, especially in the early days, it was 'catch-em-all and sort-em out later.' Lots of innocent people were tortured at gitmo, some of them even US citizens. I believe they were allowed to sue, though I'd have to look up the articles to be sure.
I never advocated torture for the sake of torture, i.e. "let's shake him down and see what falls out."
Quote:
Either way, your willingness to get into a messy and morally abased situation (i.e. sanctioned torture) led directly to the results you didn't want--innocents being tortured, regardless of their nationality.
Innocent people get sent to prison sometimes. that doesn't invalidate the justice system as a whole.
09-12-2012, 01:09
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
No such transparency exists here.
That's an entirely different issue. CIA/Military Intelligence aren't subjects to public scrutiny.
09-12-2012, 01:18
a completely inoffensive name
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
That's an entirely different issue. CIA/Military Intelligence aren't subjects to public scrutiny.
So why are you treating them the same as institutions that are?
09-12-2012, 01:19
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
So why are you treating them the same as institutions that are?
Que?
09-12-2012, 01:29
a completely inoffensive name
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Que?
Let's walk through it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Innocent people get sent to prison sometimes. that doesn't invalidate the justice system as a whole.
A typical "Shit happens. We deal with it and accept it." kind of argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Because the justice system is relatively transparent, and is generally applied fairly because public outcry is always a possibility. No such transparency exists here.
A reply that this does not apply because we only accept said shit due to the fact that we can look into how and why said shit happened, AKA there is transparency in the system that allows us to understand where things went wrong and attempt ot correct where said error occurred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
That's an entirely different issue. CIA/Military Intelligence aren't subjects to public scrutiny.
Here you accept that the institutions under fire have no transparency and yet you don't recognize the disconnect that without transparency you can't accept when "Shit happens." Because we don't even know if it is an error in judgement or a systematic policy that puts American liberties in danger.
There is no recourse for national security matters (post 9/11) so we must demand more in terms of behavior and make the line in the sand absolutely clear, because we are in a world of pain if we find ourselves on the wrong side of that line due to it being pushed further towards us every time someone says "for the good of american lives...."
Is this clear now?
09-12-2012, 01:35
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Here you accept that the institutions under fire have no transparency and yet you don't recognize the disconnect that without transparency you can't accept when "Shit happens." Because we don't even know if it is an error in judgement or a systematic policy that puts American liberties in danger.
Who says that you can't accept it?
Quote:
There is no recourse for national security matters (post 9/11) so we must demand more in terms of behavior and make the line in the sand absolutely clear, because we are in a world of pain if we find ourselves on the wrong side of that line due to it being pushed further towards us every time someone says "for the good of american lives...."
Demand what you like. Nobody's stopping you. It doesn't obligate me to demand the same.
Quote:
Is this clear now?
I'm not sure what you're arguing TBH. I was drawing an analogy, i.e "The fact that X is not perfect does not mean it's invalid."
09-12-2012, 01:41
a completely inoffensive name
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Who says that you can't accept it?
I do. Deal with it.
Quote:
Demand what you like. Nobody's stopping you. It doesn't obligate me to demand the same.
If you want all American citizens to be regarded as merely criminals in progress, then yeah sure. Nothing obligates you.
Quote:
I'm not sure what you're arguing TBH. I was drawing an analogy, i.e "The fact that X is not perfect does not mean it's invalid."
I am arguing that you are just being a coward and don't understand that the American life is characterized by a standard of living up to principles in the face of what seems to be invincible odds. We were founded by people who fought against the largest and most dominating empire the world had seen yet. That tradition of pressing onward as long as we can hold our chin up high is what prompted much of American history. Not to say that we have upheld that standard always, but to abandon it completely is to cease being American.
09-12-2012, 01:49
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I do. Deal with it.
You do? Oh, okay. Who are you again?
Quote:
If you want all American citizens to be regarded as merely criminals in progress, then yeah sure. Nothing obligates you.
Um... this is just a total non sequitur.
Quote:
I am arguing that you are just being a coward and don't understand that the American life is characterized by a standard of living up to principles in the face of what seems to be invincible odds.
Let me guess... says you?
Quote:
We were founded by people who fought against the largest and most dominating empire the world had seen yet. That tradition of pressing onward as long as we can hold our chin up high is what prompted much of American history. Not to say that we have upheld that standard always, but to abandon it completely is to cease being American.
Rhetoric is nice, but it doesn't replace logic. I see rhetoric here, but no logic.
09-12-2012, 01:55
a completely inoffensive name
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
You do? Oh, okay. Who are you again?
It was a very aggressive joke.
Quote:
Um... this is just a total non sequitur.
You cannot argue that over the past 11 years the security/intelligence field has grown larger and larger to the detriment of many domestic liberties and there is no sign of it stopping precisely due to the argument that everything we do is so American lives are not killed. When the TSA expands beyond planes, to bus stops, trains and crossing state lines, you are no longer a citizen able to travel freely but a suspected terrorist in perpetuity.
Quote:
Rhetoric is nice, but it doesn't replace logic. I see rhetoric here, but no logic.
Yeah, you don't. That's a problem.
09-12-2012, 01:56
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Quite to the contrary, RVG. Your position is the only one that is logically untenable. I don't know what to say other than to suggest you re-read this thread carefully. :shrug:
If you have issues with the methods used by our intelligence officers, I understand that. Nobody's asking you to adopt those methods or to participate. However, if you are willing to trade innocent lives for a lofty principle, and I am not, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Quote:
You cannot argue that over the past 11 years the security/intelligence field has grown larger and larger to the detriment of many domestic liberties and there is no sign of it stopping precisely due to the argument that everything we do is so American lives are not killed. When the TSA expands beyond planes, to bus stops, trains and crossing state lines, you are no longer a citizen able to travel freely but a suspected terrorist in perpetuity.
We're not discussing some Joe Schmuck who has to take off his shoes at the airport. We're discussing persuading a hardcore terrorist to talk so that an otherwise imminent attack can be averted.
09-12-2012, 02:03
a completely inoffensive name
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
We're not discussing some Joe Schmuck who has to take off his shoes at the airport. We're discussing persuading a hardcore terrorist to talk so that an otherwise imminent attack can be averted.
The legal boundaries we draw at the "hardcore terrorists" are the same boundaries that are drawn for American citizens, because if there is anything that is lofty in this world it is the government definition of terrorist.
09-12-2012, 02:06
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
The principle isn't lofty, RVG. That's the point. That you think so is actually kind of disturbing. I explained earlier why adherence to these rules is in our enlightened self-interest.
Cube, we're not robots. There are certain situations that require as as decent human beings to make judgement calls. Those judgement calls occasionally might be outside the scope of what the society at large considers acceptable. Rules are great and 99% of the time are applicable. We have to recognize though that rules cannot cover every possible situation. I for once refuse to vilify an operative who saves many at the expense of teaching a terrorist how to breathe under water. If that makes me a bad person, then so be it. Being a slave to rules at the expense of innocent lives is not something that I can accept. Not as an American, but as a human.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The legal boundaries we draw at the "hardcore terrorists" are the same boundaries that are drawn for American citizens, because if there is anything that is lofty in this world it is the government definition of terrorist.
Can you provide an example of us torturing an average Joe?
09-12-2012, 02:10
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
This has absolutely nothing to do with anything, other than that it is hilarious and ironic.
You don't want to be a slave to rules? Let your government get away with torturing american citizens (or anyone, really) because you are afraid of the bogey man and you're a slave anyway, sooner or later.
What American citizens? Where? When?
09-12-2012, 02:11
Vuk
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
What's an RVG? Red Vision Goggles? Roman Version of God? Ridiculous, Vindictive Guy? Robert's Victim Girls? Rollerblade Vesper Gown?
According to court records filed in the latest case, in 2005 and 2006 Mr Vance and Mr Ertel were working in Iraq for Shield Group Security, a privately-held security company, when they became suspicious the company was making improper payments to Iraqi officials in exchange for influence, and that its employees were engaged in illicit weapons-trafficking and other illegal activity.
The men began feeding information to US government officials in Iraq until, in April 2006, the company confiscated their credentials to enter the Baghdad Green Zone, effectively barring them from the safest part of the war-ravaged country, according to their court pleadings.
Then, US military personnel detained them, confiscated their belongings, handcuffed and blindfolded them and took them to a military base in Baghdad, where they were fingerprinted, strip-searched and locked in a cage.
They were then taken to Camp Cropper near Baghdad International Airport, where they "experienced a nightmarish scene in which they were detained incommunicado, in solitary confinement, and subjected to physical and psychological torture for the duration of their imprisonment - Vance for three months and Ertel for six weeks", the court wrote, reiterating the men's allegations.
Has the fact that they were actually tortured been proven in court?
09-12-2012, 02:26
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I'll give you that, but at the very least the bloated intelligence apparatus that has been enabled by the acceptance of torture led directly to these men being illegally detained and deprived of their constitutional rights by our own military. And this after we hired them as mercenaries.
I agree that this is screwed up, but the whole thing ended up where it's supposed to end up: in court. If they were wronged, someone's gonna pay for it.
09-12-2012, 02:29
a completely inoffensive name
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I agree that this is screwed up, but the whole thing ended up where it's supposed to end up: in court. If they were wronged, someone's gonna pay for it.
Until the law says otherwise....
09-12-2012, 02:32
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
My point, though, is that the moral line in the sand I was talking about earlier is there for a reason. Once you've crossed the line, it gets easier and easier to cross. The American people will never be able to peacefully take away the blank check on morally bankrupt activities that the government now has access to. It is attitudes like yours that made it possible, and that ensure it will happen again.
:book2:
So...when Obama authorized killing U.S. citizen Anwar Al Awlaki, was that a "morally bankrupt activity" in your opinion?
09-12-2012, 02:37
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You're god-damned right.
See, to me this was a direct application of what I've been supporting. I wanted to see that sonuvabitch pushing daisies years ago. Now, he directly inspired the Ft Hood guy and the underwear bomber, imho he got exactly what he deserved. It was justice.
09-12-2012, 02:42
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Was he truly so guilty?
Did he get his day in court? As an American citizen, he was entitled to that. He was never even tried in absentia, iirc, unless it was a military court.
That's the good thing about being president: he can authorize stuff like that just because it's the right thing to do. Whether he was tried in the military court, I do not know. Probably not. What matters though, is that with his death AQAP was seriously crippled.
09-12-2012, 02:57
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You trust the president so much?
In this particular case, yes. If I were him, I would do the same.
Quote:
Last time I checked, reaching out and killing those subjects of yours who frighten you too much to give due process to was the province of Kings, not Presidents.
The subject didn't "frighten" him, the subject incited murderers to kill the innocent. Over 20 innocent people died. The subject was permanently silenced. The president did his duty as a Commander in Chief: he protected the American people.
Quote:
I also don't see how AQAP was 'crippled.' He was just a propaganda guy. He didn't have the money and he wasn't the boss. AQAP is hurting because the Yemeni government turned against them, not because we blew up some whacked-out american citizen who was in way over his dumb-ass head.
That missile destroyed the ability of AQAP to effectively recruit people in the West. Furthermore, Awlaki as an orator was well spoken enough to attract plenty of donations. He was a very eloquent guy actually. Even ended up in Washington Post.
09-12-2012, 03:05
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Why not send in a team to extract him? Putting him on trial and proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that he did in fact incite those murders, and then putting a needle in his arm as he was sent to hell? Now that, my friend, would be justice.
If it were feasible, don't you think it would have been done?
Quote:
Acting on a presumption of guilt (however probable) and sending in some drones to blow him up is just cowardly.
Cowardly? Is Obama a follower of the Bushido? I'm not sure what you mean by "cowardly", was Obama supposed to personally fly to Yemen and beat Al Awlaki to death?
09-12-2012, 03:19
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Perfectly feasible. He was in Yemen, a nation that was effectively under the control of Al Qaeda at the time. Sending in a team would have had much less political repurcussions than sending in the team to kill OBL did.
And yet it wasn't done. Perhaps the idea had the drawbacks that you and I aren't privy to know? With Osama the idea of a hellfire missle was also an option. It was rejected because the missile didn't guarantee that Osama would be dead. Awlaki was killed while traveling, got a 100% positive ID via drone and then kaboom. Osama never left the building, that's why the seals were sent in.
Quote:
And there surely would have been no shortage of voltunteers; hell I was in the Army at the time, I totally would have gone for it.
Why needlessly risk your life?
Quote:
Unfortunately, the president knew he could get away with taking the easy way out.
A smart way out.
Quote:
Cowardly, yes. Afraid to do the hard thing even though it is the right thing. If you let your leaders make cowardly decisions, it reflects on the nation. We have a lot of cowards in America, and that's a bummer.
The notion of bravado for the sake of sake of bravado smells of a death wish. Accomplishing one's goal with the smallest possible risk is the smart way to go.
09-12-2012, 04:29
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Until it leads to compromising your principles in such a way that endangers the people it was meant to protect. Hence the need for concepts of honor and justice to begin with. :shrug:
Endangers whom and how? Obama went after a specific threat for a specific reason. Whom did he endanger as a result?
09-12-2012, 04:34
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
There is now a legal precedent for extra-judicial execution of 'terrorists' who have been been accused (but not convicted or tried) of inciting murder. Not actual murder, but inciting murder. If you think anything good will come of that in the long run, then you probably also thought the Patriot Act was a good idea.
It doesn't mean that just anyone can start popping people. The decision still has to come from the president. If the commander-in-chief can't do what needs to be done, then why have that post at all?
09-12-2012, 04:52
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
What needs to be done? Or what the administration wants to do, but doesn't want to ask permission for? There is a huge difference between 'making the hard calls that nobody else can' and 'doing it first and asking for permission later.' Neither one is particularly applicable in a democratic society anyway.
Whose permission? He's the commander-in-chief, he needs no permissions.
09-12-2012, 04:57
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
What? That's not true at all. Are you sure you're not some kind of American Monarchist?
There's a reason we elect him: we delegate our ability to make tough judgement calls to him.
09-12-2012, 12:59
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
No. You elect him to effect policies that you think will benefit you and the nation, according to your own personal metric of good or bad politics.
That's exactly what he did.
09-12-2012, 13:03
Kadagar_AV
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
RVG, do you watch Fox News, by any chance?
09-12-2012, 13:07
rvg
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
RVG, do you watch Fox News, by any chance?
Sometimes. BBC is my main news source.
09-12-2012, 13:59
Kadagar_AV
Re: rvg, some couple of years later?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Sometimes. BBC is my main news source.
Do You understand what they say, when You watch BBC?
